Judgments must be delivered by the Bench that conducted the hearing; failing this constitutes a nullity, violating fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Jaideep Narayan Mathur Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Utkarsh Srivastava, Shri Prashast Puri, Shri Abhinav Mathur, Shri Vinit Trehan, Shri Ashir Rohan Malik, Shri Shantanu Parashar and Shri Yash Srivastava Advocates, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in all the connected petitions and Shri Javed-ur-Rahman Advocate holding brief of Shri Prashant Singh Gaur Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in Petition Nos. 72 of 2026 and 74 of 2026, who states that he has instructions to appear in all the petition Nos.71 of 2026, 73 of 2026, 76 of 2026 and 77 of 2026, as he is appearing for the respondent No.3 in all the appeals before the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, from which these petitions arise.

2. As all the petitions arise from one judgment and order passed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, all the petitions are being decided together. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have filed supplementary affidavits in all the connected petitions and the same are taken on record.

3. By means of all these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the U. P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) dismissing the Appeal Nos.196 of 2024, 48 of 2024, 49 of 2024, 195 of 2024, 197 of 2024 and 394 of 2024 under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (which will hereinafter be referred to as “the RERA Act”) filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.3 in all the petitions.

4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has impleaded the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and its Registrar as an opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after much deliberation keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in spite of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur , (1992) 2 SCC 577 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 1 .

5. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these petitions are that six appeal Nos.196 of 2024, 48 of 2024, 49 of 2024, 195 of 2024, 197 of 2024 and 394 of 2024 were heard by a Bench of the Appellate Tribunal consisting of three members - (i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suneet Kumar, Chairman, (ii) Mr. Sanjai Khare, Judicial Member and (iii) Mr. Devindar Singh Chaudhary, Technical Member, on 07.11.2025 and judgment was reserved by the Bench consisting of the aforesaid three members. However, the appeals have been dismissed on 12.12.2025 by a judgment authored and delivered by a Bench consisting of the Chairman and Mr. Rameshwar Singh, Administrative Member, who was not a member of the Bench which had heard the appeals.

6. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavits in all the petitions stating that subsequent to filing of the petitions, the opposite party no. 3 filed applications for review of the judgment dated 12.12.2025, which were listed on and were disposed off on 12.01.2026 by a Bench consisting of the Chairman and Mr. Rameshwar Singh, Administrative Member, directing that the records of the connected cases be placed before a Bench comprising of Mr. Sanjai Khare, Judicial Member and Mr. Devindar Singh Chaudhary, Technical Member, for the pu